Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I am offering an amendment, a bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 480, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2003, on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley. The 1996 Telecom Act requires that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006. This was a much-needed reform that has helped millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programming. As of today, it is estimated that 3,000 captioners will be needed to fulfill this requirement, and that number continues to increase as more and more broadband stations come online. Unfortunately, the United States only has 300 captioners. If our country expects to have media fully captioned by 2006, something must be done. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother Frank was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 28 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many require captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides. Though we do not necessarily think about it, the morning of September 11 was a perfect example of the need for captioners. Holli Miller of Ankeny, IA, was captioning for Fox News. She was supposed to do her three and a half hour shift ending at 8 a.m. but, as we all know, disaster struck. Despite the fact that she had already worked most of her shift and had two small children to care for, Holli Miller stayed right where she was and for nearly 5 more hours continued to caption. Without even the ability to take bathroom breaks, Holli Miller made sure that deaf and hard of hearing people got the same news the rest of us got on September 11. I want to personally say thank you to Holli Miller and all the many captioners and other people across the country that made sure all Americans were alert and informed on that tragic day. But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from this legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately 27 million functionally illiterate adults, 3 to 4 million immigrants learning English as a second language, and 18 million children learning to read in grades kindergarten through 3. In addition, I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere--from the gym to the airport. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium. Madam President, although we have two years to go until the deadline given by the 1996 Telecom Act, our Nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. Over the past five years, student enrollment in programs that train court reporters to become realtime writers has decreased significantly, causing such programs to close on many campuses. Yet, the need for these skills continues to rise. That is why I thank the chairman and ranking member for giving me this opportunity to present this vital amendment, and, hopefully, it can be accepted. To reiterate, in 1990 I authored a bill, that became legislation, that required that all television sets that have a size 13-inch screen or larger have incorporated into that set a chip that would automatically decode for closed captioning. That went into effect in 1996, and all television sets now have a chip in them. If you have a remote, you can punch it and closed captions will come up. Then in 1996, Congress passed legislation that said that, by the year 2006, we would have a policy that all television programming would be real-time captioned. Right now if you watch the Senate in debate, you will see real-time captioning coming across the screen. You see that on news programs and sports programs. So it is engaging. But we wanted real-time captioners so that deaf and hard-of-hearing people around the country could watch television in a real-time setting and have real-time captioning. So again, we said that by 2006 we wanted to have this done. Real-time captioning is a highly trained skill that people have to have, and it is estimated that it is going to take about 3,000 captioners nationwide to do this. Madam President, right now there are only about 300 captioners nationally. We only have 2 years to go before the congressionally mandated deadline of meeting this requirement. So, earlier this year, I introduced a bill, S. 480, along with 40 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, providing for competitive grants. These grants would go to authorize entities, accredited by their State education agencies, that could then use these grants to fund programs to get scholarships for recruitment, training, and job placement to get this pipeline filled as soon as possible with these real-time captioners over the next couple of years. That is the amendment I have sent to the desk. As I said, it has broad support. It is basically in the Commerce Committee jurisdiction. I know with the press of time, it wasn't acted on this year. I thought this might be an appropriate place to put it. I think it will be widely supported by everybody. I thank the ranking member and others for their positive reception of this amendment on this bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, more than 83 days have passed since the Central Intelligence Agency filed a report and inquiry to the FBI in July regarding a leak by senior administration officials of an undercover CIA agent. This investigation was originally stymied by foot-dragging and delay and has continued to be stymied by foot- dragging and delay. It took at least 53 days for the Justice Department to officially launch an investigation. It took 4 days after that for Justice to officially notify the White House about the investigation and tell them to preserve any and all materials related to it. More recently, the investigation has been stymied by kind of a ``don't ask, don't tell'' approach by the President and by the appearance of a conflict of interest by the Attorney General. Attorney General Ashcroft, a good friend of the Bush administration and its senior advisers, a very partisan Republican for most of his life, is still overseeing the investigation. In fact, one of his top aides said yesterday that Ashcroft has been regularly briefed on key details in the investigation, including the identities of those being questioned by the FBI. Talk about a chilling effect. President Bush has joked and made light about it. I would like to bring to the attention of Senators an article by Knight Ridder, published in the newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Sunday. The headline was ``CIA Leak May Have Caused More Damage. Work of Others Using Front Company Name May Be at Risk.'' This revealed why this leak is no laughing matter; it is a deadly serious matter of national security. This is what the article said: Training agents . . . costs millions of dollars and requires the time-consuming establishment of elaborate fictions, called ``legends,'' including in this case the creation of a CIA front company that helped lend plausibility to her trips overseas. . . . Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates . . . apparently was also used by other CIA officers whose works could now be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. . . . Now, [Valerie] Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with--on business or not--may be in danger . . . and Plame's exposure may make it harder for American spies to persuade foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said. Other former CIA officials agree--including Larry Johnson, a former classmate of Plame's and former CIA and State Department official. He predicted that when the internal damage assessment is finished: . . . at the end of the day, the [harm] will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives. Another former CIA officer, Jim Marcinkowski said: This is not just another leak. This is a unprecedented exposing of an agent's identity. So, again, this is no laughing matter. The President should not treat it as such. Here are some quotes from some in his own administration. Attorney General Ashcroft said: Leaks of classified information do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld earlier this year, March--February of this year: I think leaks are disgraceful, they are unprofessional, they are dangerous. They put people's lives at risk. Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman, in June: The President does have very deep concerns about anything that would be inappropriately leaked that could in any way endanger America's ability to gather intelligence information. From his own administration, people say how bad it is to have these kinds of leaks to endanger national security. Let me give a quick recap of the timeline. It started with the President's deception in his State of the Union Address in January. In his remarks, Mr. Bush stated Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. A few months later, in July, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's op-ed appears in the New York Times, questioning the President's assertion. Then in order to discredit Wilson and ``seek revenge'' on Wilson, senior administration officials leaked to the press the identity of Wilson's wife and the fact she was a CIA operative, thereby undercutting our national security and clearly violating Federal law. This happened in early July. Let's see what happened since. On July 24, Senator Schumer calls on the FBI Director to open a criminal investigation into the leak of a CIA operative based on that column. In late July, the FBI notified Senator Schumer that they had done an inquiry into the CIA. Then it appears nothing happened for 2 months. On September 23, the Attorney General says he and CIA Director Tenet sent a memo to the FBI requesting an investigation. On September 26, the Department of Justice officially launches its investigation. Interestingly, it took 4 days after that ``official'' launch for the Justice Department to call White House Counsel Gonzales and notify him of the official investigation. Gonzalez then asked for an extra day before the Justice Department gave the White House the official notice, which means all documents and records must be preserved. A recent letter was sent to the President from Senators Daschle, Schumer, Levin, and Biden which also expresses concern about this break from regular procedure. They wrote: Every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice Department waited four days before making a formal request for documents. Interestingly, the letter goes on: When the Justice Department finally asked the White House to order employees to preserve documents, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. The request for a delay was granted. Again, every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a delay is a significant departure from standard practice. That is what has been happening--departure from standard practice. I am also troubled that the White House Counsel's Office is serving as ``gatekeeper'' for all the documents the Justice Department has requested from the White House. Mr. Gonzales' office said he would not rule out seeking to withhold documents under a claim of executive privilege or national security. What kind of a zoo is this outfit? Mr. Gonzales says he can withhold these documents from this investigation on the basis of national security. Wait a minute. It is our national security that has been breached by this leak. Now we are going to have an invocation of protecting national security to protect who leaked it, I guess. I believe this matter could have been resolved very quickly. President Bush could have called his senior staff members into the Oval Office and asked them one by one if they were involved. He could have them sign a document stating they were not involved in this leak. He could have each of them sign a release to any reporter to release anything they have ever said to a reporter thereby exempting the reporters. There has been coverup after coverup after coverup on this CIA leak, and it is not going to go away. People of America will demand that we get to the bottom of it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Chair please state for the Senator what the situation is right now in terms of this conference report?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, if I can have a couple minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, are we under time constraints on this measure?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk about this pending measure. First and foremost, I applaud the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her unwavering leadership and commitment in protecting a woman's right to privacy and to choose. No one has fought harder and longer, both in the House and in the Senate and in all of their public life, to protect a woman's right to choose than Senator Boxer of California. Senator Boxer has my highest esteem for all the work she has done to make sure that the women of this country are not controlled by ideology, by one religious belief, or by the actions of a male- dominated Senate and House of Representatives and, I might add, now a male-dominated Supreme Court. We are going to vote this afternoon on this so-called late-term abortion bill. I have serious questions about whether it will pass constitutional muster. I don't believe it will. So what we are doing is really a political exercise. This is what I call something to go out and get the vote for, by exciting passions, arousing fears, and by trying to state in overblown terms what this is all about. The bottom line and what it really comes down to is whether or not the health of the mother is a constitutionally protected right of women in this country. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court said similar State legislation was not constitutional because it lacked a health exception. It was not constitutional because there was no protection for the health of the mother. So what does the Senate and the House do? Pass legislation that still lacks the health exception. That is why it is unconstitutional. I am also very disappointed that the conferees stripped from the bill my sense-of-the-Senate resolution about a woman's right to privacy. I had offered, as I had before, a simple statement that it was the sense of the Senate that we supported the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision and it should not be overturned. It passed 52 to 46. It was attached to this late-term abortion bill which also passed the Senate. The Senator from California said the conference took less than 5 minutes to drop my resolution, without discussion. Roe v. Wade is the moderate, mainstream policy American women have come to rely on, and it took the conferees less than 5 minutes, without discussion, to drop it. What that says to me is very startling. Congress has turned its back on America's women--their right to privacy, their right to choose. America's women are now second-class citizens. Let me again give a brief review of what I am talking about. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, a challenge to a Texas statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman's life was at stake. That was the Texas law. The case had been filed by Jane Roe, an unmarried woman who wanted to safely and legally end her pregnancy. Siding with Roe, the Court struck down the Texas law. In its ruling, the Court recognized for the first time the constitutional right to privacy ``is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'' It also set some rules. The Court recognized the right to privacy is not absolute and that a State has a valid interest in safeguarding maternal health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting potential life. A State's interest in ``potential life'' is not compelling, the Court said, until viability, the point in pregnancy at which there is a reasonable possibility for the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the womb. A State may but is not required to prohibit abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman's life or health. That is what my resolution was all about, to say we agree that Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and should not be overturned. Before the 1973 landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade, it is estimated that each year 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortions, despite the known hazards of frightening trips to dangerous locations in strange parts of town, of whiskey as an anesthetic, of ``doctors'' who were often marginal or unlicensed practitioners, sometimes alcoholic, sometimes sexually abusive, unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhages, disfiguration, and death. By invalidating laws that forced women to resort to back-alley abortions, Roe was directly responsible for saving women's lives. It is estimated as many as 5,000 women died yearly from illegal abortions before Roe. Only 10 pieces of legislation were introduced in either the House or the Senate before the Roe decision, but in the 30 years since the ruling more than 1,000 separate legislative proposals have been introduced. The majority of these bills have sought to restrict a woman's right to choose. Unfortunately, what is often lost in the rhetoric and in some of those proposals is the real significance of the Roe decision. The Roe decision recognized the right of women to make their own decisions about their own reproductive health. The decision whether to bear a child is profoundly private and life altering. As the Roe Court understood, without the right to make autonomous decisions about pregnancy, a woman could not participate freely and equally in society. Roe not only established a woman's reproductive freedom, it was also central to women's continued progress toward full and equal participation in American life. In the 30 years since Roe, the variety and level of women's achievements have reached a higher level. As the Supreme Court observed in 1992: The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. As I have often said, the freedom to choose on the part of women is no more negotiable than the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship in our Constitution. I do not believe any abortion is desirable. I do not think anybody does. I have struggled with this issue all my adult life as a father. However, I do not believe it is appropriate to insist my personal views be the law of the land and that I impose those on anyone else. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the final bill, first because it is unconstitutional, but also because by dropping the resolution we adopted saying Roe v. Wade should continue to be the law of the land, it sends the wrong message to American women. What it says is they are not equal to men. They cannot make decisions for themselves. We men will make those decisions for them. They do not have the same protections under the Constitution in this bill. Somehow they are second-class citizens. I say to the women of this country, as I have said before on the floor, they must be concerned about this. We passed the resolution on Roe v. Wade 52 to 46. Well, that was a win, I guess one might say, for upholding the belief that Roe v. Wade continue to be the law of the land, but 46 Senators basically voted to say Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned, that it should not be the law of the land, that we need to go back in time to prohibit all abortions, regardless. I say to those who may think this is just one particular procedure that we are somehow prohibiting here--and again I want to point out, as the Senator from California so eloquently pointed out time after time, this is the first time in the history of this Senate that Senators have decided against a medical procedure, the only time we have somehow put on the cloak of knowing better than doctors, professionals, and women that somehow we politicians know better. Aside from that, if my colleagues think this is all this is about, they are sadly mistaken. That is not what this is about. I say to the women of America, this is step one. I say especially to young women, who sort of take it for granted--I mean, Roe v. Wade was 30 years ago, ancient history in the United States of America--especially young women who believe, as they have grown up, having this freedom to choose, having the right to control their own reproductive health, if they think this is something that inures to them because they were born in America, they have another think coming. There are people who do not want them to have that right. There are people in this Senate who want to turn the clock back and say women have no right to make any decision on their reproductive health. But, then again, isn't that what we had in Texas before Roe v. Wade? That is what this country was like before that. The Supreme Court said no, there is something else that has to do with the health of a woman, too, and a woman's right to control her own body and a woman's right to privacy. Again, I see where this is going with 46 votes in the Senate. Just think, a couple of votes here or there in the next election, you can kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye, because that is what will happen. And with one or two Justices on the Supreme Court who feel this way, that will be the end of Roe v. Wade. That will be the end for women who think they have the right to control their own reproductive health in this country--to make their own decisions. That is where this is headed. I know Senators, many Senators have personal feelings about that. Fine. There are Senators who believe very deeply that Roe v. Wade should not be the law of the land, who believe it never should have been decided that way, who believe that women should not have a right over their reproductive health. There are people who believe that. Fine, if they want to believe that for themselves, that's their belief structure. But in this pluralistic society in which we live, in which we respect each other's rights but do not try to impose our own personal religious or moral beliefs on others, the Supreme Court really did, in fact, reach a logical and I think fair and balanced approach. Yet there are those who want to strip that away--that no matter what--a woman does not have the right to make her own decisions and the right to privacy. And what does that mean? Well, it will mean we're going back to the back alley. This, really, to me is more than just an issue about some narrow procedure, I say to my friend from California. This is about whether or not the women of this country are going to be treated as equals with men or as second-class citizens. I ask the Senator from California, rhetorically, what other times has the Senate said there are certain medical procedures which applied to men that cannot be conducted? What is next? Is there something else coming down the pike we don't know about? I don't think it will affect men but it will affect women. It is a holdover from mediaeval times, a holdover from the days in which women did not have the right to participate fully in society. That is what this is about more than anything else. I thank the Senator from California for her courage, for her wisdom, for her judgment, and for being so stalwart, making sure we know what this battle is about. I think we see the writing on the wall here. It is going to pass. It is going to pass. If the Supreme Court adheres to its previous decisions, it will throw it out because there is no exception for the health of the mother. I guess then there will be a political issue to whip up emotions around the countryside. I wish we could take emotions out of this and just talk about it on the basis of what women want. I will close on this. I have often asked, think to yourself, what would happen if we had 100 women sitting here? I mean a cross section of America, liberal, conservative, moderate, different religions, different ethnic backgrounds--just a good cross section of women in America. Do you really think, down deep in your heart, this would be passed before the Senate? No way. No way would this ever pass. Or, if you had a majority of the women in the House of Representatives? Absolutely not. Women do make up more than half of our society. I forget, how many women Senators do we have now?

Mr. HARKIN. There are 14 out of 100. So women are drastically underrepresented in the body. They are underrepresented on the Supreme Court. Women have made great strides. Fourteen is more than there were when I came here--there were only one or two at the time I came here. They are making strides. What this says is we are going to turn the clock back. I don't want to turn the clock back and neither does the Senator from California. We have to make sure women in America have their constitutional right to privacy, just like men. That is what this is really about. I thank the Senator. I am proud to be on her side. I retain the remainder of our time. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for accepting my amendment, directing that $13 million of the relief and reconstruction funds in the bill may be used to facilitate inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialog, conflict resolution activities, support rule-of-law programs and train Iraqi leaders in democratic principles. In my view, the United States Institute of Peace is uniquely qualified to undertake these activities. We have been debating the President's request for $87 billion in supplemental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. At times, it has seemed that we in the Senate agree on very little. But there is one goal that I believe every Senator strongly endorses: We all want to bring our American troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. Without so much as batting an eye, we appropriate billions for war, billions for weapons, and billions for post-war reconstruction. Meanwhile, it seems that we overlook one key activity--conflict resolution and peacemaking. Conflict resolution and peacemaking must be addressed specifically and not simply as a by-product or hoped for outcome of rebuilding roads and repairing infrastructure. The U.S. Government has one agency that can help to reduce conflict, build democratic institutions, and even assist in the drafting of the new Iraqi constitution--all prerequisites to bringing our troops home sooner rather than later. I am talking about the United States Institute of Peace. This institute has a proven track record of accomplishing those prerequisites which I just mentioned. I am going to take a few minutes to explain the origins of the United States Institute of Peace because I am concerned that very few Americans know about this institute and its remarkable work. Throughout our long history, America has been proud of its strong, well-led military. And this outstanding military leadership is no accident. It is possible because we maintain prestigious, world-class military academies which train some of the best and brightest minds in America in the art and science of war. But Americans also have a long history as a peace-loving people. Time and again, we have brokered peace between warring nations, and we have intervened to head off potential conflicts. The Institute of Peace draws on this proud tradition, and today makes a vital intellectual investment in the art and science of peacemaking. Today's Institute of Peace is the fruit of a dream and vision that goes back to our Nation's Founders. Benjamin Banneker, often called ``the first black American man of science,'' and physician Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, noted and lamented the Constitution's failure to establish a Department of Peace to balance the Department of War. In their correspondence with Thomas Jefferson in 1792, Banneker and Rush envisioned a ``Peace Office'' which would be on an equal footing with the Department of War and would be charged with promoting and preserving perpetual peace in the United States. George Washington also supported the establishment of a Peace Office. And his support was not just casual. He believed that such an office should be an essential pillar of the new Nation. When he died in 1799, Washington's last will and testament bequeathed in perpetuity 50 acres in Potomac County to be used ``toward the endowment of a university--under the auspices of the general Government.'' This bequest was intended to make possible the proper ``Peace Establishment'' that President Washington had written about as early as 1783. More recently, in a 1980 report by the Matsunaga Commission strongly recommended the establishment of the United States Academy of Peace. In the course of more than 70 meetings and hearings all across the United States, Senator Matsunaga of Hawaii and other Senators surveyed the full range of threats to world peace, and explored ways to counter those threats. After much thoughtful debate a compromise was reached and the United States Institute of Peace Act was passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. A board was installed and the Institute's first meeting was held in February 1986. Since that time, the Institute has done remarkable work in such disparate nations as Afghanistan and Korea, Bosnia and the Philippines. Today, at the direction of Congress, the Institute actively pursues six interrelated activities: Expanding society's knowledge about the changing nature and conduct of international relations and the management of international conflict; Supporting policymakers in the legislative and executive branches; Facilitating the resolution of international disputes; Training international affairs professionals from the United States and abroad in conflict prevention, management, and resolution techniques; Strengthening the education of emerging generations of young people in the United States and in foreign zones of conflict; Increasing public understanding about the nature of international conflicts, as well as approaches to their prevention, management, and resolution. I also want to stress that in accord with the agency's enabling legislation, the Institute of Peace does not advocate specific policies, nor does it take policy positions. In recent years, the Institute has pursued several special initiatives that I believe are particularly noteworthy and germane to our debate on the Iraq supplemental bill. I especially want to highlight the Institute's work in Bosnia. After the Dayton Accords of 1995, the Institute activated the Bosnian Inter- religious Council, which now provides a model for reconciliation among Bosnia's Muslim, Catholic, Serb and Jewish communities. The Institute worked on the ground in both Bosnia and Washington addressing contentious issues such as rule of law, peace agreements, political restructuring, and the role of religion in conflict. I would also cite the Institute's Special Initiative on the Muslim World, which addresses a broad range of political, social, cultural, and religious issues--many of which are acutely relevant in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. At the same time, the Institute's Religion and Peacemaking Initiative is doing excellent work enhancing the capacity of faith communities to be forces for peace. In another example of the Institute's work with a Muslim community, in May 2003 the administration asked the Institute of Peace to play a facilitating role in peace talks between the government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. A team from the Institute visited the Philippines in August. And in meetings I conducted just 2 days ago, I learned that significant progress is being made. In Afghanistan the institute, through its role of law program, has participated in efforts to reconstruct the judicial system. USIP was the originator of the concept to establish a judicial commission. The institute is also working on the integration of new judicial system with traditional Afghani legal practice. The Institute stands alone among U.S. agencies in these efforts to work with the international Muslim community. Based on the Institute's brilliant work in other Muslim countries, I believe that it can play an especially constructive role in Iraq. In particular, it will take a lead role in building up Iraq's civil society, and in nurturing Iraq's fledgling democratic institutions. With adequate funding, the Institute wants to go to Iraq to facilitate inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue among community, political and civic-society leaders. One of the biggest threats to our reconstruction effort in Iraq is the possibility that full-fledged fighting could break out between religious and ethnic communities. The Institute can play a vital role in preventing this. The Institute also will work to establish the rule of law by supporting the constitution- writing process and designing a framework for bringing to justice leaders of the former dictatorial regime. So, exactly as envisioned by our Nation's founders, the United States Institute of Peace is playing a vital role in restoring and strengthening peace around the world--and now, in particular, in Iraq. As I said, this is the key to bringing our troops home soon, with their mission truly accomplished. I am pleased that we have allocated $13 million for conflict resolution and peacemaking in Iraq. In order to adequately fund the Institute's work in Iraq the Institute needs only one hundredth of one percent of the President's total request. Surely this is not too high a price to pay for ``making peace.'' Time and again in recent years--including in Iraq--our Nation has shown that it is brilliant at winning wars. But time and again, we have had difficulty winning the peace. As we continue to increase funding for the Department of Defense by tens of billions of dollars each year, we must also be generous in our support and funding for this all- important agency, the United States Institute of Peace.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The question is, Has the investigation been tainted so far? One instance which comes to this Senator's mind is when the Department of Justice announced an official investigation but they waited for days to notify the White House. I ask the Senator: Is this not an indication that the investigation has already been tainted by the Justice Department?

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from New York, it seems to me if the President really wants to get to the bottom of this--and I don't really know that he does want to get to the bottom of this--I say to the Senator from New York, it seems odd the President has been so nonchalant about it, actually joking about it with foreign reporters. Let's say, if I were a senior administration official working for the President, and the President called me in and said: ``Tom, I want you to sign this thing; it just says, `I, Tom Harkin, hereby release any and all journalists from any obligation they may have to me to protect my name as any possible source of a leak of this information regarding Valerie Plame,''' and he'd ask me to sign it, it seems to me if I had nothing to hide, I would sign it. If I had something to hide, I might not want to sign it. Then the President would know. You are obviously right, you don't want to force anyone, but obviously they work for the President. I ask the Senator from New York, doesn't it strike you as odd that the President, who has spoken so forcefully about leaks and national security, has been so nonchalant about this? Doesn't it strike the Senator as odd?

Mr. HARKIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the pending amendment offered by the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, Senator Kennedy, myself, and others, I believe is key as to whether this bill includes any real measure of accountability to Congress and, thus, to the American people for this country's policy in Iraq. This is essentially similar to an amendment I had offered during the committee markup. We had an excellent substantive debate in the committee, and we are having I hope again today a debate on accountability of this administration. I thank Senator Byrd for his tremendous leadership on this issue. I thank the chairman of our full committee, Senator Stevens, for permitting us again--I know at some point he will want to move to table, but I thank him for allowing us to have this time to have our say and make our points about why we feel so strongly that this amendment should be adopted. The amendment allows funding for our military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment we are debating allows $10.1 billion for Iraqi relief and reconstruction over the next 6 months, until April of 2004; $5.1 billion of that is set aside for police and military training in Iraq and about $5 billion would be for reconstruction aid. I note the $5 billion is the amount of reconstruction aid the World Bank believes Iraq can absorb over the next full year, let alone in just 6 months. Further taxpayer funding for Iraq beyond that $10.1 billion would be contingent on important accountability to Congress and the American public. In order to receive Iraqi relief reconstruction funding beyond the $10.1 billion, the President would have to certify to Congress that the U.N. has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational military force in Iraq under U.S. command. The President would also have to certify that he has a concrete plan for stabilization and democracy in Iraq, with fixed timetables and cost estimates, and the President would have to submit a report to Congress detailing the international support for our efforts in Iraq, both in terms of money and troops, as well as a report indicating troop levels and duration for our involvement in Iraq. In other words, what is our exit strategy? Finally, and most important, this amendment would say there must be an additional vote taken by Congress before we spend any more money. Again, I have listened to our ranking member, my good friend from West Virginia, many times in this Chamber talk about the Founding Fathers and how smart they were and how they wanted to balance the powers in this country so we did not have a dictator or king or someone who could run amok with the public treasury. That is why the clause in the Constitution that gives us control over the purse strings is so important. The intention of the Founding Fathers, at least as far as I have come to understand and read in my history books, is they did not mean to give us the purse strings so we could open it up and dump money into the White House. They wanted us to be accountable to the American people for every dime that was spent; that we had to keep a tight pull on those purse strings, parcel that money out in a deliberative manner so that no President--Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever-- would be given a blank check with the taxpayers' dollars. This amendment is in keeping with the best traditions and intentions of our Founding Fathers and keeping our faith with the Constitution of the United States in being diligent at controlling the purse strings of taxpayers' dollars. I just cannot explain why the administration is so stubborn in resisting even this most commonsense accountability. They are insisting on a blank check. Again, even the World Bank says we cannot spend any more money than that $5 billion in a year. Yet they want $21 billion. When people like me and the Senator from West Virginia and others raise questions about accountability, the administration, in effect, is saying: Trust me. That is exactly the line we heard before the war in Iraq. I admit publicly--it is on the record--one year ago I voted for the Iraq war resolution because I opted to trust the President. I opted to give him the benefit of the doubt. In the lead-up to the war, the President's approach boiled down to two words: Trust me. Trust me that Saddam is in cahoots with al-Qaida because we have that information, he said. Trust me that Iraq has vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Trust me, said the President, that postwar reconstruction will be self-financing because Iraq has fabulous oil wells. Trust me, said the President, that we have a serious plan to manage postwar Iraq. And today the administration dares to say one more time: Trust me that this $20 billion for reconstruction is absolutely necessary, and that if you will only give us a blank check, we will spend it wisely. There was a story on the front section of the business section of today's New York Times which illustrates how this vast amount of money--if not diligently looked at, if we don't keep a tight rein on those purse strings--can boil down to what in World War I and World War II was called war profiteering. The business section of the New York Times this morning showed that Halliburton, for example, was making over 66 cents a gallon on fuel that it was selling to the United States government for use in Iraq, and we were paying them for it. We are paying them these profits. It showed how much Halliburton was spending, up to $1.70 a gallon for fuel when they could have gotten the same fuel in the region for basically 66 cents less a gallon. Where is that money going? We don't know. That is the problem with all of this money floating around: Trust me, the administration says. As the old saying goes, there is no education in the second kick of a mule. Quite frankly, I admit publicly I have been kicked repeatedly by this administration's mule saying, Trust me. A few years ago, the administration pushed through this No Child Left Behind bill for education. The President said: Trust me, we will come up with the resources to make sure it works. Now we have the mandates but we do not have the resources. Trust me, they said, that we will have the evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, the means to deliver them, that he had connections with al- Qaida. We now know none of this is true. I am basically here today saying, Not this time around; I am not willing to give a blank check; I insist on a measure of basic accountability. I recall President Reagan's policy with regard to arms control. Remember what he said? He said, Trust but verify, and that is exactly the purpose of this amendment. It allows $10.1 billion for Iraqi reconstruction through the end of March 2004. Further funding would be contingent on two things: The President must certify to Congress that the U.N. has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational military force in Iraq under United States command; and, two, the President must certify that he has a coherent plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, including a significant commitment of financial assistance from other nations. In short, trust but verify, no blank check. The administration will be on notice that additional money for Iraq reconstruction will not be automatic. The President first must come forward with a coherent plan to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, to stabilize and democratize Iraq, and then bring our troops home as soon as possible. Everyone is talking about ``supporting our troops,'' and certainly we want to do everything we can to support our troops. At issue is, how do we best support the troops? The Stars and Stripes, the newspaper all of us relied upon during our tenure in the military, has just released a poll showing that one-half of the troops surveyed say their unit's morale is low in Iraq. Almost 50 percent say it is very unlikely or not likely that they will reenlist when their term is up. According to Stars and Stripes, a key reason for this dissatisfaction is: Uncertainty about when they will be returning home. Let me be clear, nothing will be better in terms of support for our troops than to compel this administration at long last to internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, to internationalize the military involvement in Iraq. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has said many times, it is time to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out. That, along with a clear and credible exit strategy from Iraq, is how we best support our troops, who are risking their lives every day, separated from their friends and their families, many of them not continuing with their education, not knowing when they are going to come home, performing duties for which really they were not trained. The Byrd amendment is the amendment that supports our troops, and that is why it should be adopted. I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 1832, 1853, 1865, and 1866

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senate's passage of the amendment Senator Clinton and I proposed today that requires the General Accounting Office to report to the Congress in 6 and 10 months about the contracting and subcontracting process in Iraq. I appreciate Chairman Stevens' support. The GAO would study the effectiveness and efficiency of those contracts, particularly looking at profit and things like administrative overhead as the contracts turn into subcontracts and subsubcontracts. It calls for the GAO to make recommendations on how to improve the process. I believe we must do a lot of work to improve how we are doing things before the Congress gets the next large request for funds for Iraqi reconstruction. I would like to insert into the Record at the end of my remarks a letter of support for the amendment from Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. I fear that there is a lot of very poor performance and clear waste going around for the grants already let. I fear we may be seeing some of the worst taxpayer wastes in decades. That is saying an awful lot. I would note that there are press report that U.S. AID only has 14 employees in Iraq overseeing $3 billion in contracts. That is maladministration. The first Iraqi military battalion has just been trained under a $49 million contract to Vennel, a subsidiary of Northrup Grumman. The work got subcontracted to something called MPRI. The interesting thing is that first battalion was not detailed to work in areas where there are difficulties in Iraq. Instead of taking a load off of American troops, they have been assigned to the desert to defend against Iran. It smells like nobody trusts the quality of that work and we are hiding the result. It looks like Halliburton is charging the U.S. $1.62 for gasoline that can be bought and transported to Iraq for about 96 cents. Price gouging would be a kind way of saying it. The budget documents indicated that $50,000 is being budgeted for the creation of 8,000 new prison cells. I fear contracts will be issued at that level when the real cost of construction in Iraq is far, far less. Given the cost of construction, it makes one wonder why the price is so high. It is, I believe more than it would cost to build such facilities in the United States, where labor costs are far higher. There is a plan for an $800 million Iraqi police training facility. I am told there is likely to be a $26 million per month ``management fee'' associated with this project. We need to understand what the reality is on expenditures like these. We need to have real examination of what is going on and make sure that the structure is in place that U.S. taxpayers' money is well used and not wasted. I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator believe that such a disclosure could have a chilling effect on operatives of ours in the field today and who in the future may be out there risking their very lives gathering information that we need on the war on terrorism? Does the Senator believe this could have a chilling effect?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for one last question?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his response. I have one last inquiry I would like to make and have the Senator address. A lot has been focused on the individual, Valerie Plame--whom I never met, of course. But a lot has been focused on her as sort of an isolated incident, just one person, and that is it. It has occurred to this Senator, as the Senator from New York has so plainly stated, there are more than just the uniformed soldiers in Iraq fighting the war on terrorism. It is all of our undercover agents, our CIA, our information-gathering apparatus around the world to give us forewarning of what is going to happen, to get access to that vital information that we need in this fight against global terrorism. Can the Senator address himself to the kind of chilling effect such a disclosure might have on operatives of ours in the CIA, around the globe today, who may be out there? They are getting their sources of information. But what if they think at some point in the future they could be outed, their name could be spread out there? What about, not only them personally, but what about all their contacts? Now their contacts are thinking: My gosh, if they are outed, I am outed and my life is at risk. Could the Senator address himself to the broader kind of effects this might have on our fight on global terrorism?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. First, I thank the Senator from New York for his very early and very eloquent statements on this issue, going clear back to July. It was the Senator from New York who first started alerting this body and the American people as to this disclosure by the Bush administration of an undercover CIA agent's name and the ramifications it had. So we owe the Senator from New York a great deal of gratitude for his leadership on this issue because it is a matter of very grave national security importance. I have been listening to the Senator from New York talk about the need for a special counsel and why it is so important for the Attorney General to recuse himself from this. But I ask this of the Senator from New York. It seems to me one of the ways we might really get to the bottom of this in a hurry would be if those who leaked the information to the journalists were to release the journalists from any obligation to hide the sources. I ask the Senator, would it not be possible for the President of the United States to call in all of his senior staff, have them sit down at a desk and sign a piece of paper releasing Mr. Novak and any other journalists from protection of his or her name as a possible source of the leak? Couldn't the President just have all of the senior White House people, senior administration people sign such a thing? Then wouldn't that release the duty or obligation of the journalists to protect their sources? And wouldn't that get to the bottom of it in a hurry? I ask the Senator from New York.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for the time. I join with him and others in thanking our leaders for bringing this bill forward. I congratulate Senator Gregg, chairman of our committee, Senator Kennedy, ranking member on our side, Senator Snowe, and all the other Senators they have mentioned, who have worked so hard to get us to this point. Again, I thank the leadership for the vote today. I was present sort of at the gestation period and finally the birth of the mapping and sequencing of the human genome. What a magnificent step forward this was in terms of our understanding of the underlying basis for many of our diseases and illnesses. This feat of sequencing and mapping of the 3.1 billion base pairs of the human genome, sometimes called ``the book of life,'' opens up a world of possibilities for preventing and curing disease. New genetic tests take the concept of early detection and treatment of disease to levels that were previously only imagined but are now scientifically possible. Discoveries have been made about the genetic basis of many diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and asthma. Tests are already available for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, and several other diseases. But while the potential medical and health benefits of this new technology seem limitless, they cannot be pursued without caution and safeguards against abuse, such as discrimination by health insurers or employers. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, before us now, addresses these possible abuses. It establishes protections against discrimination based upon genetic information both in health insurance and employment. It is a gigantic step forward, as Senator Kennedy said, in making sure people are not discriminated against simply because of what their genes are. While this bill doesn't include everything I believe it should have included, it is a significant step forward for the American people and for our health care system. Under this bill, individuals will finally be protected from discrimination by health insurers or employers based on genetic makeup. Everybody will have the peace of mind to seek answers to questions about themselves without fear of losing their health insurance or their job. I commend those leaders who have brought this forward and yield back whatever time I may have remaining.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on October 19, Mother Teresa of Calcutta will be officially beatified in Rome. I say ``officially,'' because in the eyes of so many people around the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, she is already recognized as an extraordinary saint. She is, without question, one of the most beloved individuals of our time. Why is this? By all means, her accomplishments are well known and respected. Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity and oversaw the organization's amazing growth. By the time of her death, the order had grown to include more than 5,000 sisters, brothers, and volunteers, operating some 500 centers around the world. Even here in Washington, DC, we witness Missionaries of Charity on the streets of this city, tending to the homeless and feeding the hungry. But there is another reason why this woman is so beloved. It is because we live in a world of such extraordinary material abundance, a world that prizes youth and health. And yet here was a woman who willingly and lovingly embraced poverty, and devoted her life to the old, the sick, and the dying. And more than that, she inspired thousands of people all across the world to join her in that mission. I remember hearing about a journalist who visited one of Mother Teresa's hospices in Calcutta. He watched as one of the sisters bathed and dressed the terrible wounds of a leper who was near death. The journalist said to the sister, ``You know, I wouldn't do that for all the money in the world.'' To which the sister answered, ``Neither would I.'' In 1979, when Mother Teresa accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, she said: I chose the poverty of poor people. But I am grateful to receive the Nobel Prize in the name of the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the blind, the lepers, all the people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout our society, people that have become a burden to society and shunned by everyone. That is just an amazing statement, an amazing testament. Mother Teresa was powerfully motivated by the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, ``As you did for the least of these your brethren, you did on to me.'' And just as Jesus inspired Mother Teresa, the soon-to-be Saint Teresa of Calcutta inspires all of us. She is a saint for all time, but she speaks with special urgency to us today.